Health Covid-19's XEC Variant Spreads Like Wildfire, Says Thai Health Ministry

[Patong2021]

5 hours ago, Acharn said:

Well, in the U.S. over 1 million died before they stopped keeping statistics. Granted, that was three years ago, and we don't know how many Covid has killed since then. There's also Long Covid, of course, and I don't know if that's a problem in Thailand, but assume it is. I'm 87 years old, so I take it pretty seriously. I also get a flu shot every year.

 

And that is one of the reasons why you are still alive at 87 and hopefully have a few more years to go.

[ericbj]

Dr. Vinay Prasad, the new FDA vaccine chief is against mRNA.

 

He reports that everyone vaccinated with genetic materials is getting higher troponin levels than normal, with the inference being that all have been injured in their hearts.

The first two prospective cohort studies, where blood cardiac troponin level was measured before and after receiving mRNA injections, demonstrated unacceptably high rates of troponin elevation, indicating predictable heart damage.

Heart cells do not replicate. Once they are killed, they are lost forever. The more cells that die, the more likely the person is to have clinical Myocarditis to one degree or another.

 

 

[ericbj]

11 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Where is this great suppression? The scientific journals require that submissions provide a factual basis and demonstrable evidence and  none of the great "truth tellers" you reference  is able to provide  empirical evidence, actual clinical data to support their claims. Almost all of the "medical" detractors had a financial or political interest in their alternative treatments  and/or claims. There are the  "doctors" who sell alternative  treatments, and then there are the "doctors" who really are not specialists in the field with their political agendas.

You need to research the matter you write about before giving a opinion.

I am not going to do your research for you, as your prejudices will likely cause you to reject the findings out of hand.

 

But anyway, here is something to look at:
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

 

[Patong2021]

19 minutes ago, ericbj said:

You need to research the matter you write about before giving a opinion.

I am not going to do your research for you, as your prejudices will likely cause you to reject the findings out of hand.

 

But anyway, here is something to look at:
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

 

 

The article reference you  provide was a commissioned opinion. It was not a peer reviewed paper, but the commentary of the  editor of the BMJ. It must be taken in context. The opinion was given in 2020, before the vaccines were  available and when there was a  degree of disarray and panic by some within the medical research sector. Multiple alternative  treatments were being promoted and  his intent was to question them. The concerns of frontline health workers on the spread of the disease was, in his view, not being listened to, because of political pressures to keep  public places open and to minimize disruptions. Since 2020, he has put his comments in context and walked back some of his position that was misinterpreted. 

 

In 2022 he provided a clearer position which is contrary to what you assume his position  was and is. Some of his statements are arguments that there should have been a more forceful response to the pandemic and that the  UK government failed because it did not work with other nations to adopt a worldwide strategy.

It’s clear policy-makers did not live the value of being evidence-based. (and he cites the example of  Being patient-centred)

To take the example of asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and the recent judgments relating to what happened in care homes: the government tried to deny that it knew about asymptomatic transmission. Yet this was something people were talking about at the beginning of the pandemic. If you’d read the evidence or spoken to anyone about the experience of East Asia, and of other pandemics, you would understand that asymptomatic transmission is possible and needs to be catered for. To pretend that this evidence did not exist is certainly not following the evidence.

 

His reference to asymptomatic transmission  is the exact opposite of what the Covid conspiracy claims promoters say. People who did not have symptoms were transmitting the infections. It is in effect a call for reduced interactions, i.e.  stopping large gatherings,  required masking etc. He was criticizing the reluctance of the  UK government to apply more forceful measures.

 

You have demonstrated what happens when an uneducated and biased person goes in search of credible  documentation to support a deficient assumption.  I used to be a lot more tolerant of  contrary opinions on this subject, but the amount of ignorance and the continued promotion of  garbage claims is an attack on science. An attack on science is an assault on freedom and must no longer  be tolerated. You can't even read an opinion piece properly.

[ericbj]

58 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

The article reference you  provide was a commissioned opinion. It was not a peer reviewed paper, but the commentary of the  editor of the BMJ. It must be taken in context. The opinion was given in 2020, before the vaccines were  available and when there was a  degree of disarray and panic by some within the medical research sector. Multiple alternative  treatments were being promoted and  his intent was to question them. The concerns of frontline health workers on the spread of the disease was, in his view, not being listened to, because of political pressures to keep  public places open and to minimize disruptions. Since 2020, he has put his comments in context and walked back some of his position that was misinterpreted. 

 

In 2022 he provided a clearer position which is contrary to what you assume his position  was and is. Some of his statements are arguments that there should have been a more forceful response to the pandemic and that the  UK government failed because it did not work with other nations to adopt a worldwide strategy.

It’s clear policy-makers did not live the value of being evidence-based. (and he cites the example of  Being patient-centred)

To take the example of asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and the recent judgments relating to what happened in care homes: the government tried to deny that it knew about asymptomatic transmission. Yet this was something people were talking about at the beginning of the pandemic. If you’d read the evidence or spoken to anyone about the experience of East Asia, and of other pandemics, you would understand that asymptomatic transmission is possible and needs to be catered for. To pretend that this evidence did not exist is certainly not following the evidence.

 

His reference to asymptomatic transmission  is the exact opposite of what the Covid conspiracy claims promoters say. People who did not have symptoms were transmitting the infections. It is in effect a call for reduced interactions, i.e.  stopping large gatherings,  required masking etc. He was criticizing the reluctance of the  UK government to apply more forceful measures.

 

You have demonstrated what happens when an uneducated and biased person goes in search of credible  documentation to support a deficient assumption.  I used to be a lot more tolerant of  contrary opinions on this subject, but the amount of ignorance and the continued promotion of  garbage claims is an attack on science. An attack on science is an assault on freedom and must no longer  be tolerated. You can't even read an opinion piece properly.

You seem to assume and believe that alternative treatments for Covid - often involving re-purposed, well-established, and relatively safe drugs - are invalid.

 

They are not, as experience tells, and from following their trials.

 

Moreover protocols for their use, e.g. of the FLCCC, were being developed when the so-called Covid "vaccines" were not yet available, and patients not yet in a critical state were told to go home and wait until their condition was serious.

 

Of course officialdom was able to offer remdesivir costing $3,100 per course of treatment.  With far worse side-effects than that of 1.5 mg doses of ivermectin (ridiculed as "horse-medicine").

 

Professor Raoult was likewise ridiculed when he demonstrated the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (in non-critical cases of Covid).

[johng]

On 5/26/2025 at 2:43 PM, MarkBR said:

You are obviously unfamiliar with the mortality worldwide due to COVID. 

Mostly less than 1%

 

[ericbj]

On 5/25/2025 at 7:52 PM, cdemundo said:

"Strange Enough The 'Common Flu' Has Disappeared Off The Face Of The Earth (?)"

 

Not true, I had it earlier this year and blood test they did at Kasemrad ruled out COVID and ID'd which flu variant it was.

 

So maybe I am old-fashioned, but I still think that saying things that are not true is lying.

Looking at mortality statistics for certain years it becomes apparent that the flu can be more deadly than the coronavirus:

E.g. for France:
"In 1922, deaths linked to respiratory diseases other than Covid  [i.e. essentially influenza and common cold] were the THIRD most important cause of death in France, according to the latest available figures.  Covid was the FIFTH major cause.
"Lethality is however difficult to measure for infectious diseases, according to the epidemiologist Antoine Flahaut."
Source:  https://www.ouest-france.fr/sante/virus/coronavirus/infographies-grippe-ou-covid-quelle-epidemie-est-la-plus-mortelle-en-france-3e350ddc-cc1c-11ef-a918-9f91756062b6

 

Both the flu and Covid are respiratory diseases and as such have similarities.  At least true for Covid in its initial phase, but as an unusual type of virus it is capable on occasion of harming many other organs.  It seems, on the basis of recent research from Australia (yet to be confirmed), that the spike protein (whether from the virus or a vaccine), which is present only in minute quantities (picograms) causes folding of the protein fibrin to form amaloid plaque.  Which can then set in motion a chain-reaction creating further amaloid plaque.  This is a possible explanation of the origin of peculiar, whitish, rubbery 'blood clots' now being encountered for the first time.

See:

 

Statistics for Covid deaths in the United States are thought to be unreliable, owing to

 

(1) the government financially incentivizing hospitals to declare deaths as being due to Covid; and

 

(2) the use of inappropriately-executed PCR tests yielding false positives being taken as evidence that death was caused by Covid (hence it has been claimed that suicides and car-crash mortalities have been recorded as due to Covid).

 

"… if a person gets a 'positive' PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a 'false positive' result is 97% or higher."
Source: https://swprs.org/the-trouble-with-pcr-tests/
 

[jayboy]

6 hours ago, ericbj said:

1.5 mg doses of ivermectin (ridiculed as "horse-medicine").

 

Possibly because it is horse medicine, and the crazies go for it like moths to a flame.

 

Based on government views and reputable academic studies, the consensus is that ivermectin is not effective for treating or preventing COVID-19. Here’s a clear summary:

Government Views:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that ivermectin is not authorized or approved for preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Clinical trial data do not demonstrate effectiveness, and taking large doses can be dangerous, potentially causing nausea, seizures, or death.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends against using ivermectin for COVID-19 outside clinical trials, citing inconclusive evidence from 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with very low-certainty data on reducing mortality, hospitalization, or clinical improvement.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has noted increased ivermectin prescriptions and poison control calls due to misuse, reinforcing that it lacks proven benefits for COVID-19 and may cause harm.

Reputable Academic Studies:

The PRINCIPLE Trial (University of Oxford, 2024) found ivermectin reduced symptom duration by about two days (from 16 to 14 days) in a largely vaccinated population but did not significantly reduce hospitalizations, deaths, or long-term outcomes, concluding it offers no clinically meaningful benefit.

The ACTIV-6 Trial (2023, JAMA) showed that ivermectin at 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days did not improve recovery time compared to placebo in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

A Cochrane Review (2022) concluded there is very low-certainty evidence on ivermectin’s impact on mortality, hospital admission, or viral clearance, with no reliable support for its use.

The PLATCOV Trial (2023, eLife) found ivermectin had no significant antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, with viral clearance 9.1% slower than in controls.

A meta-analysis (2022, Clinical Infectious Diseases) noted that earlier claims of survival benefits were heavily reliant on poor-quality or potentially fraudulent studies, with no significant effect when only high-quality RCTs were considered.

Counterpoints: Some earlier studies, like those cited by the FLCCC Alliance, and observational data from regions like Peru and Brazil suggested potential benefits, such as reduced case counts after ivermectin distribution. However, these studies often had methodological flaws, lacked randomization, or were retracted due to ethical concerns (e.g., Elgazzar study).

Conclusion: The overwhelming evidence from high-quality RCTs and authoritative health bodies (FDA, WHO, CDC) indicates that ivermectin does not provide meaningful benefits for COVID-19 treatment or prevention. Its use is not supported outside clinical trials due to insufficient efficacy and potential risks.

 

[ericbj]

42 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

Possibly because it is horse medicine, and the crazies go for it like moths to a flame.

 

Based on government views and reputable academic studies, the consensus is that ivermectin is not effective for treating or preventing COVID-19. Here’s a clear summary:

Government Views:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that ivermectin is not authorized or approved for preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Clinical trial data do not demonstrate effectiveness, and taking large doses can be dangerous, potentially causing nausea, seizures, or death.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends against using ivermectin for COVID-19 outside clinical trials, citing inconclusive evidence from 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with very low-certainty data on reducing mortality, hospitalization, or clinical improvement.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has noted increased ivermectin prescriptions and poison control calls due to misuse, reinforcing that it lacks proven benefits for COVID-19 and may cause harm.

Reputable Academic Studies:

The PRINCIPLE Trial (University of Oxford, 2024) found ivermectin reduced symptom duration by about two days (from 16 to 14 days) in a largely vaccinated population but did not significantly reduce hospitalizations, deaths, or long-term outcomes, concluding it offers no clinically meaningful benefit.

The ACTIV-6 Trial (2023, JAMA) showed that ivermectin at 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days did not improve recovery time compared to placebo in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

A Cochrane Review (2022) concluded there is very low-certainty evidence on ivermectin’s impact on mortality, hospital admission, or viral clearance, with no reliable support for its use.

The PLATCOV Trial (2023, eLife) found ivermectin had no significant antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, with viral clearance 9.1% slower than in controls.

A meta-analysis (2022, Clinical Infectious Diseases) noted that earlier claims of survival benefits were heavily reliant on poor-quality or potentially fraudulent studies, with no significant effect when only high-quality RCTs were considered.

Counterpoints: Some earlier studies, like those cited by the FLCCC Alliance, and observational data from regions like Peru and Brazil suggested potential benefits, such as reduced case counts after ivermectin distribution. However, these studies often had methodological flaws, lacked randomization, or were retracted due to ethical concerns (e.g., Elgazzar study).

Conclusion: The overwhelming evidence from high-quality RCTs and authoritative health bodies (FDA, WHO, CDC) indicates that ivermectin does not provide meaningful benefits for COVID-19 treatment or prevention. Its use is not supported outside clinical trials due to insufficient efficacy and potential risks.

 

"… authoritative health bodies (FDA, WHO, CDC) …"

 

All three of them are in bed with "Big Pharma" from which they receive very substantial proportions of their annual budgets.

Just to give an example, the WHO's principle funder is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [name may be changed now].

 

Research studies funded, directly or indirectly, by the pharmaceutical industry have frequently "proven" the ineffectiveness of un-patentable remedies (e.g. mega-dose intravenous vitamin C therapy first developed by Dr Klenner, and then promoted by Linus Pauling, two-times Nobel Laureate, in association with Dr Ewan Cameron).  How do they do this?  In general, very simple.  They use non-therapeutic doses for their "research".

 

Might be worth a glance: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6940627/

 

However, you are free to believe what you want and support your beliefs with the evidence that fits.  There is no shortage of it, as the pharmaceutical industry is financially very powerful and intends to remain so.

 

[And Google's search algorithms are these days programmed to favour the conglomerate's financial interests]

[Patong2021]

9 hours ago, ericbj said:

You seem to assume and believe that alternative treatments for Covid - often involving re-purposed, well-established, and relatively safe drugs - are invalid.

 

They are not, as experience tells, and from following their trials.

 

Moreover protocols for their use, e.g. of the FLCCC, were being developed when the so-called Covid "vaccines" were not yet available, and patients not yet in a critical state were told to go home and wait until their condition was serious.

 

Of course officialdom was able to offer remdesivir costing $3,100 per course of treatment.  With far worse side-effects than that of 1.5 mg doses of ivermectin (ridiculed as "horse-medicine").

 

Professor Raoult was likewise ridiculed when he demonstrated the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (in non-critical cases of Covid).

 

You are confusing the use of drugs that were reviewed and tested with drugs that were promoted without any clinical evidence to support their use. You are relying on vested interest  platforms and tiktok self appointed  experts for your guidance.

 

Covid 19 is an inflammatory disease. That is why Dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, was tried. Tt was shown to reduce deaths in patients with severe COVID-19 who were are hospitalized with low oxygen levels. It was not a miracle cure, but significantly helped when used with other treatment.. The drug was low cost,  proven safe and had been on the market for years.  The use of the drug was tested without bias and proved far more beneficial than ivermectin. 

 

The 2020  studies that promoted ivermectin were misinterpreted  by the general public. In the cases where there was a positive outcome, the interpretation did not take into account normal recovery nor the impact of other therapies. The fact is that since the end of the Covid 19 crisis,  there have been no clinical studies, no evidence to support the benefit of the drugs use. For example,  research led by the University of Oxford has concluded that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not provide clinically meaningful benefits for treating COVID-19 in a largely vaccinated population.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445324000641

Multiple studies have the same conclusion. There was no conspiracy of silence. The conspiracy promoters attach a suppression conspiracy to the use of ivermectin, claiming "Big pharma wanted to block a low cost drug",  but ignore the fact that dexamethasone, was of  low cost  and was actually effective, and was not blocked. 

 

You reference Raoult and his use of hydroxychloroquine. Yet, you do not acknowledge that his claims were shown to be FALSE and unsupported. His  2020 paper in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (IJAA), claimed that treatment with hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug, reduced virus levels in samples from COVID-19 patients, and that the drug was even more effective if used alongside the antibiotic azithromycin.  The paper claiming the drugs benefits was retracted. The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) journals that published the papers announced they were retracting all six of his papers, along with a seventh by Raoult’s colleagues on the basis of  methodology failures, breaches of ethics and lack of verified evidence.  Further investigation, demonstrated systemic  research breaches  for 15 years. The man was a sham and he  destroyed the reputation of the research institute where he worked. Not once have I ever seen any of the Covid19 conspiracy promoters acknowledge this.

 

The Covid conspiracy promoters latched on to the studies and still cite them as evidence of a miracle treatment. They ignore facts like the initial paper only used a sample size of  36 patients and had an unusually short peer-review time: The paper was submitted on 16 March 2020 and published 4 days later. Elisabeth Bik exposed the  manipulation of data  when she discovered that six patients who were treated with hydroxychloroquine had been dropped from the study—one of whom had died, and three of whom had transferred to intensive care—which would have shown that the drug was not  effective as claimed. The study  in effect presented people who would have recovered without the drug as having benefited from the drug. Larger, more rigorous trials carried out later in 2020 showed hydroxychloroquine did not benefit COVID-19 patients. 

 

The problem that many cultures continually face is that people are conditioned to expect a quick solution, an immediate gratification. People tend to embrace simplistic solutions when they are overwhelmed by a complex problem that they cannot manage. Have an illness, take a pill.  Reproduce at an older age after a life of exposure to  toxins and have a damaged child, blame vaccines, Experience a  catastrophic flood, and it's because of cloud seeding etc. 

[ViajeroLA]

On 5/26/2025 at 7:15 PM, Acharn said:

Well, in the U.S. over 1 million died before they stopped keeping statistics. Granted, that was three years ago, and we don't know how many Covid has killed since then. There's also Long Covid, of course, and I don't know if that's a problem in Thailand, but assume it is. I'm 87 years old, so I take it pretty seriously. I also get a flu shot every year.

You are 87 sir, that's another story. I would also pay att to even crazy stories about illnesses at this age 👍

 

I hope you aren't a believer in this BS and u don't follow their rituals hurting your health by literally limiting air supply to your brain and body thought 🙃

[Dan O]

On 5/25/2025 at 10:33 AM, richard_smith237 said:

I just want to dissect your comments because of the silliness throughout.

 

 

Throughout human history, pandemics and deadly infectious diseases have occurred regularly, far more severe than a cold or flu. The Black Death (14th century), Spanish Flu (1918), smallpox, tuberculosis, and others killed tens of millions. The idea that we only dealt with mild viruses until now is simply incorrect.

 

Assigning a name to a virus (like COVID-19) isn't about giving it a “personality” but about identifying and tracking specific pathogens. Viruses are always named and studied in modern epidemiology. It's part of how science works to understand and manage outbreaks effectively and the vary in their severity with antigenic drift.

 

 

The idiocy with this one is astonishing: While individual viruses are smaller than the gaps in standard cloth or surgical masks, viruses don't travel alone. They hitch a ride in respiratory droplets, which are large enough to be blocked or reduced significantly by masks. Also, N95 and equivalent masks filter out over 95% of particles down to 0.3 microns, very effective against airborne virus-containing droplets.

 

Policies during lockdowns often considered essential services and the ability to manage crowd control. Large stores could implement distancing, one-way systems, and sanitation more easily than small ones. It wasn't ideal, but it was a trade-off made under pressure and uncertainty, very easy for the Monday morning Quater-backers to criticise - but as you have highlighted you lack the technical knowledge for critical thought, even with 20/20 hindsight.

 

 

While it's true that billionaires saw increased wealth during this period, similar wealth shifts have occurred across history: e.g. post-war booms, the industrial revolution, or the 2008 financial crisis bailouts. It’s not uniquely unprecedented, though it certainly deserves scrutiny. Government interventions also provided massive support to workers, renters, and businesses.

 

As far as fear is concerned, that can be a factor, but compliance was also driven by solidarity, concern for the vulnerable, and trust in public health. Not everyone blindly followed orders - there was widespread debate, protest, and legal challenge throughout. People aren’t mindless; they were reacting to a real threat.

 

As far as two meter distancing is concerned, while ventilation was an issue in many places, distancing still reduced transmission risk, especially when people were not confined together for long. Many establishments did invest in better airflow and HEPA filters. The point of distancing wasn’t to be perfect, but to reduce overall viral load exposure (again, something which requires a certain degree of understanding for the concept to sink in).

 

 

 

Thus: all in all, the measures taken were based on real-time scientific advice, evolving data, and a genuine attempt to save lives in unprecedented circumstances. Mistakes were made, but suggesting it was all absurd or intentionally manipulated oversimplifies a deeply complex situation - and outs you as a rather unintelligent critic appealing to emotion rather than intelligence. 

 

 

 

Good response to this post.

 

It's a far more complex problem than many want to believe when its a new illness never dealt with in the past and no baseline to judge the best response medically. Its one of the many reasons virus, illnesses, etc are studied in labs. To understand how they function and the potential outcomes so we can hopefully be prepared if a critically needed medical response will be needed. Gain of function research is one method of determining the unknown risks, not just to weaponize them as a tool.

[Lorry]

On 5/22/2025 at 8:05 AM, Drumbuie said:

Aspirin is better for COVID

Is this personal expertise,  expertise from someone you know,  or are there studies to support this view?

It didn't dig too deep, but it seems to me the situation is maybe not that clear-cut 

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/scientists-caution-about-cdc-guidance-over-counter-drugs-covid-19

[Lorry]

11 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

I used to be a lot more tolerant of  contrary opinions on this subject, but the amount of ignorance and the continued promotion of  garbage claims is an attack on science. An attack on science is an assault on freedom

It's also an attack on other people's life, e.g. on my life. 

@Sherylonce wrote something similar to "these people have blood on their hands". 

And it's not that they are stupid.  They are evil.

A very smart friend of mine, a doctor, is a covid denier,  for the simple reason he wants to ride his motorcycle wherever whenever and doesn't care about  others. Pure sefishness. As @ThailandRyan posted:  Ignoring the facts just means folks don't care about anyone but themselves....

[Lorry]

On 5/25/2025 at 10:37 PM, SunsetT said:

Boost your natural immunity by taking 10,000 iu Vitamin D3

This would do nothing to "boost your natural immunity", whatever that may mean.

I suppose you take this long-term, not just a week or so ?

If you really do this (10 times the recommended dosis), I recommend do some "research", i.e. Google side effects of Vitamin D3.

 

[Lorry]

On 5/25/2025 at 8:30 AM, Sydebolle said:

Well, well, here we go again. In a country, where a doctor attests Malaria on an infant who is teething on two spots simultaneously and hence has high fever, in a country where an 8-month year old toddler is analyzed food poisoning and subsequent pumping out the little stomach for nothing else but an infection over a bottle of milk which was not properly sterilized, in a country where they wanted to operate on both my eyes to insert multifocal lenses while I had the beginning of AMD and found out only at the third medical - equally 5* - facility ....

And you want to tell me, that all those semi-divine doctors know all the details on XEC variant of Covid-19?

Thais, who do not dare to ask their doctor questions for the fear of angering the doctor by challenging his professional background, might fall for this. Let's see, how many millions if not billions are extracted from the governmental's purse this time. 

We are so lucky to have a medical expert genius like you on this forum.

 

BTW we are not racist, are we?

[still kicking]

Sharing what we need to know about the 2025... - Health Horizon Watch | Facebook 

[ericbj]

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

 

You are confusing the use of drugs that were reviewed and tested with drugs that were promoted without any clinical evidence to support their use. You are relying on vested interest  platforms and tiktok self appointed  experts for your guidance.

 

Covid 19 is an inflammatory disease. That is why Dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, was tried. Tt was shown to reduce deaths in patients with severe COVID-19 who were are hospitalized with low oxygen levels. It was not a miracle cure, but significantly helped when used with other treatment.. The drug was low cost,  proven safe and had been on the market for years.  The use of the drug was tested without bias and proved far more beneficial than ivermectin. 

 

The 2020  studies that promoted ivermectin were misinterpreted  by the general public. In the cases where there was a positive outcome, the interpretation did not take into account normal recovery nor the impact of other therapies. The fact is that since the end of the Covid 19 crisis,  there have been no clinical studies, no evidence to support the benefit of the drugs use. For example,  research led by the University of Oxford has concluded that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not provide clinically meaningful benefits for treating COVID-19 in a largely vaccinated population.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445324000641

Multiple studies have the same conclusion. There was no conspiracy of silence. The conspiracy promoters attach a suppression conspiracy to the use of ivermectin, claiming "Big pharma wanted to block a low cost drug",  but ignore the fact that dexamethasone, was of  low cost  and was actually effective, and was not blocked. 

 

You reference Raoult and his use of hydroxychloroquine. Yet, you do not acknowledge that his claims were shown to be FALSE and unsupported. His  2020 paper in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (IJAA), claimed that treatment with hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug, reduced virus levels in samples from COVID-19 patients, and that the drug was even more effective if used alongside the antibiotic azithromycin.  The paper claiming the drugs benefits was retracted. The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) journals that published the papers announced they were retracting all six of his papers, along with a seventh by Raoult’s colleagues on the basis of  methodology failures, breaches of ethics and lack of verified evidence.  Further investigation, demonstrated systemic  research breaches  for 15 years. The man was a sham and he  destroyed the reputation of the research institute where he worked. Not once have I ever seen any of the Covid19 conspiracy promoters acknowledge this.

 

The Covid conspiracy promoters latched on to the studies and still cite them as evidence of a miracle treatment. They ignore facts like the initial paper only used a sample size of  36 patients and had an unusually short peer-review time: The paper was submitted on 16 March 2020 and published 4 days later. Elisabeth Bik exposed the  manipulation of data  when she discovered that six patients who were treated with hydroxychloroquine had been dropped from the study—one of whom had died, and three of whom had transferred to intensive care—which would have shown that the drug was not  effective as claimed. The study  in effect presented people who would have recovered without the drug as having benefited from the drug. Larger, more rigorous trials carried out later in 2020 showed hydroxychloroquine did not benefit COVID-19 patients. 

 

The problem that many cultures continually face is that people are conditioned to expect a quick solution, an immediate gratification. People tend to embrace simplistic solutions when they are overwhelmed by a complex problem that they cannot manage. Have an illness, take a pill.  Reproduce at an older age after a life of exposure to  toxins and have a damaged child, blame vaccines, Experience a  catastrophic flood, and it's because of cloud seeding etc. 

I suggest digging a little deeper.

 

This is the first article I happened to click on:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8248252/ 

 

"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

[GoodieAfterDark]

On 5/25/2025 at 7:01 AM, still kicking said:

I had 2 a few days ago, the same arm and the same time, how come I am still alive?